The Dunstan East project was approved last night 4-1 by Newton’s Zoning Board of Appeals.
The three-acre mixed use project is located on Washington Street just outside of West Newton Square. It stretches back to Cheese Cake Brook and includes the buildings where The Barn Family Shoe Barn is located. (The Barn is moving down the street to a great new location at Trio).
It will provide 234 apartments (59 permanently affordable), 8,500 square feet of ground floor commercial and retail space and 290- underground parking spaces.
Mark Development has agreed to $3.4 million of community benefits, including a major clean up and other improvements (including a boardwalk) to Cheese Cake Brook, an affordability subsidy, energy efficiency enhancements, bus shelters and other transportation improvements plus a sewer upgrade.
I recently had a call with Washington Place, now Trio, and was told that they only have 3 units rented, out of 140 total that will be available September 1st! The luxury rental market appears to have collapsed. Why is Korf still building, and why is the city still approving? Is he going to try to strong hand the city into converting to condos in the next few years or pressure them to cut his property tax bill big time.
Gee, Anonymous. You sound like an amazingly reliable source of information on regional housing market demand, how real estate valuations are performed by property type, and how developers possess mysterious superpowers that force elected officials to cower in fear. Obviously, you should be running for mayor. Good luck with that.
Anonymous
I would worry more about the health of commercial tenants (blight).
The building is not close to completing yet and if they drop the rents low enough, the units will be rented (at a loss to the developer)
High priced renters right now are craving outdoor space…
8500 square feet of new bank and salon space! If we’re lucky, and it doesn’t just sit vacant like many of the gleaming new mixed use developments over in Watertown.
What, if any process or controls are left now that ZBA approves? The packet includes letter from a Dunstan St neighbor about the building heights, absence of setbacks and shadows (because of the drop-off downhill from Washington St). Those all combine for issues of design and oversight. The renderings look like buildings that are slab-edged to the sidewalks — just like Trio — and every bit as industrial-strength. They’re not excused by a donation to a nearby park or pathway . . .
Ah, to see NIMBYism alive and well in an age of (selective) social justice.
A comment was removed because, well, it was disgusting and idiotic.
To summarize, north of pike gets at least 578 units (trio, dunstan,riverdale) in the next 2 years
Hopefully the kids can all squeeze in.
Hmm…south of the Pike gets 800 from Northland and 600+ from Riverside.
Rent control! Rent Control! Rent Control! You know the real person who runs Newton, Robert Korff, is having nightmares about this. The problem is, once you co-opt the affordable housing message to make even more 100’s of millions for yourself, your friends and neighbors, including Mayor Full of It, you are subject to the power of the populist movement. You can bet Emperor Korff is deploying his minions to spread the PR message that rent control is “not right for Newton.” The Irony is delicious.
To be fair, the city does need the rax revenue
Whether or not that comes at the expense of increased class sizes, we wont know for several years…
Common sense suggests… maybe? Looking forward to another override if that’s the case
Schools, Schmools, Bugek. Mayor Full of It commissioned a friendly research firm to state as fact via their “research” that the number of the incoming students will decline for several years to come. They actually have the gall to state that the current population of Newton is aging and their kids are aged out of the system, completely ignoring the fact that many, many people move to Newton for the schools, HELLO! Who doesn’t know that?? From all over the world, in fact. The more this social engineering experiment goes on, the more unbelievable it becomes.
I’m pretty pumped for this. It will extend the “square” feeling of West Newton Square and freshen up the square, too. My only concern is that the storefronts may struggle to successfully fill the storefront – the 3 spots on Elm were vacant for years, and now of course we have a pandemic. I hope they can find some good tenants.
@amy sangiolo, you do realize that Dunstan East occupies a 3 acre site while Northland is on over 22 acres and Riverside will occupy a 15 acre site, don’t you? So Dunstan East will actually be more dense. And I do believe that Trio, which has 140 residential units, is north of the Pike as well, and occupies a site containing less than 3 acres.
Methinks thou dost kvetch too much.
As long as unrelated opinions are being tossed around like confetti, does anyone have knowledge to share on why the Elm St Playground gets money and attention in this “developer concession” package and Torchia ballfield and playground doesn’t? Torchia is closer to Dunstan St
to answer the original comment, of course Mayor Korff will both leverage for a lower property tax rate, then convert as many of these luxury units to condos as possible. He has free reign. Why don’t you folks try talking to your councilor about this? The will tell you that we MUST “increase height” in our already packed villages North of the Mass Pike and that we have to allow development as called for in 40b. Of course, no one mentions the fact that 40b was bought and paid for by developers’ lobbyists and allows them to continue building as long as thresholds for affordable housing are not met – thresholds that will never be met as long as the vast majority of new residential construction (80 – 90%!) is not affordable. but hey, as long as the more wealthy and powerful areas of the city control the mayor and council, areas of Newton, including Newton Centre, which has its own green line stop, won’t see one bit of “increased height.” Try going to a shop in Newtonville – no parking means that only those that live within a few city blocks will frequent them. Goodbye to retail – and if you think I am exaggerating, talk to business owners on the street.
I have never — not once, not even during the height of Austin St. construction — failed to find a parking space in Newtonville.
Dunstan East and Riverdale are setting new bars for density for large housing developments in Newton…
– Dunstan East – 234 units on 3 acres (78 units per acre)
– Riverdale – 204 units on 3.4 acres (60 units per acres)
The most recent large special permits have ranged between 35-50 units per acre:
– Austin Street – 68 units on 1.7 acres (40 units per acre)
– Washington Place/Trio – 140 units on 2.85 acres (49 units per acre)
– Northland – 800 units on 22.6 acres (35 units per acre)
– Riverside – 600 units on 15 acres (40 units per acre)
If Riverdale (204) is approved by Zoning Board of Appeals that project together with Dunstan East (234) and Riverside (93) should exceed the 461 SHI eligible unit threshold, the City Administration said Newton needs to reach the 40B 10% Safe Harbor threshold last December – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100653
It will be interesting to see if Mayor Fuller or Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Chairwoman Brooke Lipsitt submit a safe harbor request to the MA Dept. of Housing and Community Development for Newton if the Riverdale 40B is approved.
It also will be interesting to see if Mark Development moves quickly to file a 40B permit application for Dunstan West before Newton reaches the 10% 40B safe harbor. The firm has been reticent on their plans for Dustan West, but the very lucrative project just approved by ZBA likely makes a 40B on the adjacent parcel an attractive proposition for Mr. Korf and his capable team.
Rich,
The city is building the new units in the name of “social justice”… they have every intention of continuing to create more units of housing (outside of newton centre , waban and chestnut hill)
The whole Washington street vision plans to build new housing along a 2 mile stretch north of the pike.
@Bugek a concern that I and others have raised regarding ‘the plan’ you mention is the willingness of the Majority of our City Council and now the ZBA to approve large development projects with the bare minimum of affordable units.
In the case of special permits like the one for Northland residents were told on V14 and elsewhere that the City could only ask for so much or the developer would choose the 40B path. If we reach safe harbor, the 40B option is off the table and Newton’s negotiating position is stronger. Then, we can help ensure special permit projects which like Northland and Riverside (which are more valuable than 40Bs due to less restrictions on commercial and retail space) can do more do address the City’s critical shortage of affordable housing.
For the record, I spoke at two ZBA public meetings requesting that the share of affordable units be increased above the required minimum of 25% when units affordable at 80% Average Median Income are included. (40B affordable minimum is 20% when all affordable unites are affordable at 50% AMI)
ZBA was unwilling to require more than 25% even though the developer provided no financial basis or pro-froma information to show it would not be financially viable.
Since the 40B program was created in the 1970’s, it has brought more than 70,ooo units of housing online in the Commonwealth. Up until recently, roughly half of all 40B housing units have been affordable. Newton should be leading and I hope our elected and appointed officials require large developers to do more to address our affordable housing crisis in the projects they approve.
The first project on the list I posted above, Austin Street, which is the smallest, had 33.8% of the 68 total units designated affordable. Unfortunately, residents have seen the affordable unit shares decline as the size of developments (and likely developer profits) have increased.
Rich,
As the number of affordable units increase in a development, the higher the rent/price will be for the remaining units to subsidize…
Helping some and hurting others. An interesting model since cities have used is to enforce affordable units BUT can be created in a different location where land costs can bring ‘real’ affordability
Unless the city wants to own and be a developer and operate “at a loss”, there will only be “token” affordability given our proximity to Boston, excellent schools and low crime..